Nutt was forced to resign after Johnson accused him of campaigning against ministers' decisions on the reclassification of cannabis and ecstasy. His dismissal prompted a furore among the scientific community and two members of the council resigned in protest. "It's hard to see how the remaining members of the council can continue to work under the current arrangements," Nutt said.

In an attempt to defuse the row, the science minister, Lord Drayson, has pledged that the government will issue new guidelines to ensure the independence of its scientific advisers.

Drayson acknowledged that there was "serious concern" over Nutt's sacking. "It's very important that, in future, the chief scientific adviser and the science minister are consulted before ministers take decisions to sack independent scientific advisers," Drayson said in a newspaper interview.

Nutt said: "This is an issue across government. All scientists need to be treated in the same way. I've had emails from other people working in other scientific councils who have had similar sorts of experiences."

A truly independent ACMD would be able to appoint its members, opening up the possibility that Nutt could return. "If an independent ACMD was set up, then of course I'd come back," he said. "I've got a lot to give, but I wouldn't come back to the old system."

Whether Nutt has sufficient support from the remaining council members is open to question. Several believe he overstepped the mark by continuing to speak out following his dismissal. But others are known to want to send a message to government. The Liberal Democrats have formally asked Johnson to apologise to parliament for making "misleading" statements.

In a letter to Johnson, Liberal Democrat MP Evan Harris said: "The points you made are of such seriousness to the professional and public standing of Professor David Nutt that you should now correct yourself in the chamber, apologise for misleading the House, and apologise to Professor Nutt."

Meanwhile a new poll suggests the vast majority of doctors think Nutt's sacking was wrong. A survey of medical opinion by doctors.net.uk reveals that almost nine out of 10 believe the home secretary should have let Nutt continue, despite his views.

Asked: "Do you think Alan Johnson was right to sack Professor Nutt?" 86% of the 350 doctors who responded said no, 10% said yes and 4% were undecided.

The debate is also raging among economists. A new study, to be published in the journal Economic Policy, claims the evidence for prohibition having a major impact on prevalence of cannabis-use is weak.

Stephen Pudney, a professor at the Institute for Social and Economic Research and author of the report, said cannabis-use rose sharply in the 70s and 80s when the drug was illegal. Meanwhile, the decision to reclassify it from grade B to grade C in 2004 did nothing to stop the downward trend in consumption in recent years.